is there such a thing as a straight line?

[sarxweh]

What would legitimate the question for you, quatona?

 

[quatona]

What would legitimate the question for you, quatona?

A significant context.

 

[sarxweh]

You tell me. When saying it was a "philosophical question" (in all caps) what did you mean to contrast it to?

Accident. But I thought it was funny so I left it in all caps.

I meant to say philosophical as in a question fit only for lovers of knowledge

Well, a line - as determined by the given purpose and intent is possible.
It´s just not the same as the abstract "philosophical" line you seem to be demanding.

"A line"? What are you even talking about? What in your mind is an abstract philosophical line vs a line?

Yes, an entirely theoretical abstract line can only be theoretical, abstract.
Concrete lines (as defined by the purposes the are drawn to suit) are possible.

Well that was a problem I saw with the buckets. Even a " straight line" like a door jamb or an I-beam aren't really straight if you extend them; meaning physical substances are automatically out. While a "theoretical line" is possible only theoretically, and thus is never "real". You show me how that's not a philosophical problem.

So what are these implications you would like me to think through? I beg your pardon?

Don't hurt yourself

 

[quatona]

Accident. But I thought it was funny so I left it in all caps.

I meant to say philosophical as in a question fit only for lovers of knowledge

As opposed to whom? Who here, do you feel, hasn´t tried to answer the question by attempting to contribute knowledge?

"A line"? What are you even talking about? What in your mind is an abstract philosophical line vs a line?

The first is a mere concept, the latter a physically existing example of the defining properties in that concept.

Well that was a problem I saw with the buckets. Even a " straight line" like a door jamb or an I-beam aren't really straight if you extend them; meaning physical substances are automatically out.

Sure. Physical substances can impossibly meet the ideals of your concept straight line".

While a "theoretical line" is possible only theoretically, and thus is never "real". You show me how that's not a philosophical problem.

Maybe you start by showing me how it is a philosophical problem? I have no idea what the problem is you are seeing.

Don't hurt yourself

I beg your pardon?

 

[Colter]

_​

 

[sarxweh]

Maybe you start by showing me how it is a philosophical problem? I have no idea what the problem is you are seeing.

Slow down. First, i do see it is a theoretical problem, and I greatly appreciate the level of factual intelligent response that has been given. For the most part (perhaps minus my own comments?) we have been painting the theoretical landscape (and its been great).

The problem in question isn't lines. Its the problem of "straight" lines. Straight is descriptive, notional, theoretical, conceptual, where "line" is definite, non abstract, material, perceptible, etc.

If I asked you to apply the notion of straight, say, to your belief in science, you would wisely answer "it is as straight as the verity of its claims" and not "science is straightness", since by this second statement, you would be reversing the nature of science itself. Ex. We don't need kings, we need good kings.

Thus the notion of straight must also be applied conceptually to "line", where the "line" itself is neither straight nor curved. It is merely a succession of locations, implying an undefined direction and form.

I think the implications are philosophical in nature, since the term "straight" is conceptual in nature, and philosophy is largely the science of Being, which involves the way we conceive, perceive, even deceive our knowledge.

I think we're all intrigued by opinion on the question, but if anyone feels that the mathematical theoretics are still in need of clarification, my original interest was in further wrapping my own head around the inherent nature of the problem.

Fun right?